Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-03-20
SUNDAY MARCH 90, 1887
Tho Drnmmers' Decision

A correspondent WrlteS us u lctJer, III
which he contends that under the rs
cent drummers' decision of the SUI
prcme Court of the United States per-
sons from New York, or Maryland, orany
other State can lawfully sell spirituous
liquors in Virginia without paying any IL
cense tax. We have 10 say that in a case.
from Massachusetts, that court decided
years ago that United States license
under the internal.revenue laws did
not authorize a person to sell such
iiauers in State whose laws pro-
hibited their sale. The language of
the opinion in the drummers' case con-
sists with that decision. This question,
we have no doubt, has been raised hun
dreds of times in Maine, where for
twenty-odd years Federal licenses have
failed to empower any person to sell
liquors except as provided for in the
Maine liquor-law. We are as confident
as we could possibly be of anything not
absolutely certain, that the Supreme
Court of the United States intended by
the language which it used in discuss
ing this point to concede the right OF
each and every State to regulate the
sale OF spirituous liquors within its own
limits.
But what of the following extract
from the opinion in the drummers'
case ? We quote:
"But in making such internal regu-
lations a State cannot impose taxes
upon persons passing through the
State or coming into it merely for a
temporary purpose, especially If con-
necfed with interstate or foreign COM
merce, nor can it impose such taxes
upon property imported into the State
from abroad or from another State and
not yet become part OF the common
mass of property therein and no dis
elimination can be made by any such
regulations adversely to the persons or
property of other States, and no regu-
iations can be made directly affecting
interstate commerce. Any taxation
or regulation of the latter character
would be an unauthorized interference
with the power given to Congress over
the subject"
This language is to be taken IN con-
nection with the qualifying words which
have Just been used-namely, that "com-
merce between the States can be legiti-.
mately affected by State laws " "when
by virtue of its police power" State
provides for its security of'the lives
and health of persons by "the passage
of laws to regulate or restrict the sale
of articles deemed injurious to the
health or morals OF the community. "
There is no conflict. The court was
not called upon to repeat the qualifying
words which it had just employed. We
have a good illustration of this point in
the Constitution Of the United States,
the first article Of which provides in its
FIST section that "GH Legislative p0O-
orS herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, and i'll
its seventh section that no bill shall be-
come law without the approval of the
President of the United States.unloss
after the bill has been vetoed by him
two thirds Of the Congress shall agree to
pass it over his veto. Yet there is no
conflict here. The two sections, though
they make no reference the one to the
other, nor intimate that either is quail
fed by the other, have for hundred
years stood together. So as to the two
extracts we have quoted from the opin-
ion in the drrmmers' case.
II the decision were that persons from
other States could sell in any State
spirituous and malt liquors by whole
sale or retail, or by both wholesale and
retail. the Prohibitionists would make
things in this country lively for awhile.
But the court has rendered no such de-
cision, and is not going to render any
such. The Virginia Legislature will
not be frightened from its propriety"
by a buebear.